It is an unfavorable step toward “educating a man up to the importance
of being buried with his Lord and Master in baptism,” to set the law
of God requiring it aside, and receive him without it. This would
only lead him to doubt whether we saw or cared for the importance of
it ourselves. It never can have a good influence on any sensible man
to see religious people so anxious to get him into their party as to
set aside their own established principles, and what they hold to be
clearly the _law of God_, for a man not willing to submit to the law of
induction into the heavenly family. This is not _liberality_, but
_disloyalty_ all around. It is not a question about what _we_ will do,
but what the _Lord_ will do.
Mere refinement and respectability have nothing to do in the matter. It
is a matter of faith and respect to the supreme and absolute authority.
Has a man the faith, the humility and the obedient spirit that will
learn of Jesus and yield to what he requires? We are not vying with any
people in this country in efforts to be liberal and easy in our views
and practice, but we desire to see who can live nearest to the Lord
and follow him most closely. He laid down the law of induction, or the
law for receiving members, and we have no discretionary power in the
matter. We do not make the terms, but simply exhort men to comply with
them, as found in the Book of God.